Term Limits Amendment

[Boss]

I didn't say we are devoid of democracy, dear.

We're not a democracy and our framers had contempt for democracies. That's why they established a republic instead.

Now you should shut up talking about things you don't understand... go make your man a sandwich and leave this business to us men folk.

 

[Care4all]

I didn't say we are devoid of democracy, dear.

We're not a democracy and our framers had contempt for democracies. That's why they established a republic instead.

Now you should shut up talking about things you don't understand... go make your man a sandwich and leave this business to us men folk.

Aw, poor wittle boss-y poo, so sorry to upset you!

We are not a PURE democracy, where every single bill is voted on by the people, but our federal government, is a form of Democracy...and our state governments are even closer to being pure democracies....especially the States that allow referendums.

We rank fairly high on the list of democratic nations, though we have lost some ground.

you do know, we try to spread democracy around the world, we tried to spread it to Iraq and were so so proud of those purple fingers....

 

[there4eyeM]

A song by Dylan says, in part, "...money doesn't talk; it swears..." The idea of allowing the weight of wealth dominate speech is unthinkably uncivilized.

 

[Care4all]

I didn't say we are devoid of democracy, dear.

We're not a democracy and our framers had contempt for democracies. That's why they established a republic instead.

Now you should shut up talking about things you don't understand... go make your man a sandwich and leave this business to us men folk.

Boss, what user name did you use before you became Boss? Your sandwich comment is reminding me of a previous poster here....

 

[Boss]

because it's a guise, it won't solve the problem of money in Washington from lobbyists and the monied/the wealthy, paying off congress critters for what they want...

follow the money....

not this silly dog and pony show.....

making elections, gvt funded, like that dollar or two we check to contribute to the presidential fund, would eliminate the need for congress critters spending their whole time trying to get campaign funds and selling their souls to lobbyists to get it.

it would not take 5 or 10 years, and more than likely never, to solve the problem!

I don't understand why my argument about nominating and electing honorable people who have high integrity and character and can't be bought off is seeming to fall on deaf ears. If you elect unscrupulous people, that's what sort of behavior you'll get... and you can pass as many laws and regulations as you please, they won't change. They will simply find another way around whatever obstacle you put in their way.

You can't make elections government funded. What you'll end up with is every Tom, Dick and Harry lining up to get their free government money and no real intention of actually campaigning for office. We know this because we already see this happening with the matching federal funds... there's a reason 17 people threw their names in the ring for the GOP nomination... knowing full well they wouldn't ever be nominated.

As for lobbyists and special interests... eliminate the massive power of federal government and you don't have that problem because there's nothing to influence. If we return to smaller limited government like it was designed to be, the lobbyists go away... there's nothing on the store shelves.

But again, you are not telling me why term limits are a bad idea. Do you see some benefit in allowing these dinosaurs to roam Congress for 40 years? Most of them have no idea what life is like in the private sector... it's been decades since they were there. They carve out their own little protected class where they don't have to abide by the laws they set for the rest of us and make careers out of being elitists and taking money from various special interests. I have to assume you think that's okay.

Your sitting here telling me something 3/4ths of us want is a "dog and pony show" that has no chance. I don't believe you. In this age of polarization, to find something that only 13% of us disagree with is pretty phenomenal and has a pretty good chance for success.

 

[Boss]

Boss, what user name did you use before you became Boss? Your sandwich comment is reminding me of a previous poster here....

I've always used this same user name here. My sandwich comment is intended to convey how you are a really good argument for why the 19th Amendment should've never been ratified. You lack the mental attributes to be making political decisions. Stick to making sandwiches and baking cookies, sweetheart. Leave the politics to the men folk.

 

[Boss]

A song by Dylan says, in part, "...money doesn't talk; it swears..." The idea of allowing the weight of wealth dominate speech is unthinkably uncivilized.

When you and Dylan figure out a way to promote political ideas across a vast nation of 320 million people without it costing money, let us know!

The idea that prohibition makes something less important has been proven to fail over and over again.

 

[keepitreal]

Sneator Cruz has co-sponsored an Amendment resolution to the Constitution.

Sen. Cruz and Rep. DeSantis Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Impose Term Limits On Members of Congress | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

The enduring concept of a citizen legislature, of limiting unruly influence and abuse of power, and of promoting integrity and unclouded judgment in Washington through congressional term limits is a priority strongly supported by the American people. According to an October Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of Americans support establishing term limits for all members of Congress, while only 13 percent oppose term limits.

Thoughts?

12 years is still too long for 1 member

 

[there4eyeM]

A song by Dylan says, in part, "...money doesn't talk; it swears..." The idea of allowing the weight of wealth dominate speech is unthinkably uncivilized.

When you and Dylan figure out a way to promote political ideas across a vast nation of 320 million people without it costing money, let us know!

The idea that prohibition makes something less important has been proven to fail over and over again.

Laughably false reconstructions of the statement in post #43.

 

[Care4all]

because it's a guise, it won't solve the problem of money in Washington from lobbyists and the monied/the wealthy, paying off congress critters for what they want...

follow the money....

not this silly dog and pony show.....

making elections, gvt funded, like that dollar or two we check to contribute to the presidential fund, would eliminate the need for congress critters spending their whole time trying to get campaign funds and selling their souls to lobbyists to get it.

it would not take 5 or 10 years, and more than likely never, to solve the problem!

I don't understand why my argument about nominating and electing honorable people who have high integrity and character and can't be bought off is seeming to fall on deaf ears. If you elect unscrupulous people, that's what sort of behavior you'll get... and you can pass as many laws and regulations as you please, they won't change. They will simply find another way around whatever obstacle you put in their way.

You can't make elections government funded. What you'll end up with is every Tom, Dick and Harry lining up to get their free government money and no real intention of actually campaigning for office. We know this because we already see this happening with the matching federal funds... there's a reason 17 people threw their names in the ring for the GOP nomination... knowing full well they wouldn't ever be nominated.

As for lobbyists and special interests... eliminate the massive power of federal government and you don't have that problem because there's nothing to influence. If we return to smaller limited government like it was designed to be, the lobbyists go away... there's nothing on the store shelves.

But again, you are not telling me why term limits are a bad idea. Do you see some benefit in allowing these dinosaurs to roam Congress for 40 years? Most of them have no idea what life is like in the private sector... it's been decades since they were there. They carve out their own little protected class where they don't have to abide by the laws they set for the rest of us and make careers out of being elitists and taking money from various special interests. I have to assume you think that's okay.

Your sitting here telling me something 3/4ths of us want is a "dog and pony show" that has no chance. I don't believe you. In this age of polarization, to find something that only 13% of us disagree with is pretty phenomenal and has a pretty good chance for success.

we deserve the ability to vote for who we feel represents us, as our founders wanted for us and our nation...

how would term limits really change anything? it would be chaos.

 

[Dr Grump]

I oppose it as the people should choose how long someone stays in the congress. That is democracy.

We're NOT a democracy.

Yeah, you are.

 

[Boss]

we deserve the ability to vote for who we feel represents us, as our founders wanted for us and our nation...

how would term limits really change anything? it would be chaos.

Nonsense. Chaos? Let's not be over-dramatic, sweetheart. Take a Prozac and stop being hysterical. You'd still be able to vote for who represents you, they'd serve their two terms and then you'd have to find someone else who represents you. What we would eliminate is career politicians who DON'T represent you.

What it would change is this "establishment class" who go to Washington and ensconce themselves for life. Making careers out of peddling their influence.

If you were to find someone you really liked and they served their two Senate terms, you could elect them as your Representative for another 6 years... if you still liked them and wanted them representing you, they could come home and be your governor or mayor. But you wouldn't be allowed to have your Ted Kennedys occupying their 'king-maker' roles for decades in government anymore.

It appears you want to keep your big powerful government oligarchs who control everything. You're not interested in "democracy" so I don't know why you pretend to be.

 

[Boss]

I oppose it as the people should choose how long someone stays in the congress. That is democracy.

We're NOT a democracy.

Yeah, you are.

No. We're not.

 

[Boss]

A song by Dylan says, in part, "...money doesn't talk; it swears..." The idea of allowing the weight of wealth dominate speech is unthinkably uncivilized.

When you and Dylan figure out a way to promote political ideas across a vast nation of 320 million people without it costing money, let us know!

The idea that prohibition makes something less important has been proven to fail over and over again.

Laughably false reconstructions of the statement in post #43.

Laughably false accusations of a moron.

 

[Boss]

12 years is still too long for 1 member

Well I think it's about right. You're going to inevitably have some people who you'd like to keep around longer because they do a good job. But I think that, after 12 years, you start getting in trouble with people who've lost touch with mainstream America. They're not part of it anymore. They really need to go back home and spend some time in their states.

 

[there4eyeM]

The idea of allowing the weight of wealth dominate speech is unthinkably uncivilized. It does, of course, aid anti-democratic élitistists.

 

[Boss]

The idea of allowing the weight of wealth dominate speech is unthinkably uncivilized. It does, of course, aid anti-democratic élitistists.

Sorry, but you're still not explaining how free people can express their political opinions to others without spending money for air time, printed literature, microphones and PAs. How they can travel from city to city across America with their message without any money. It just doesn't work out in reality.

The thing is, if you eliminate private campaign contributions, then you certainly limit political speech to only the wealthy who can afford to do this with their own wealth. The average citizen could never compete.

 

[there4eyeM]

Common levels of 'morality' and ethics should reign in human exchange. They do not because human nature is too often seduced by power. Regulations are therefore, unfortunately, necessary in many spheres of endeavor. Simple weight of money cannot be the determining factor in the democratic process. Those who support 'money equals free speech' must confront this fact. That which is intolerable will not continue forever. Public funding is one solution. If there are others, and something else may well be preferable, then they best be brought rapidly to the table.

 

[Boss]

Common levels of 'morality' and ethics should reign in human exchange. They do not because human nature is too often seduced by power. Regulations are therefore, unfortunately, necessary in many spheres of endeavor. Simple weight of money cannot be the determining factor in the democratic process. Those who support 'money equals free speech' must confront this fact. That which is intolerable will not continue forever. Public funding is one solution. If there are others, and something else may well be preferable, then they best be brought rapidly to the table.

Public funding is not a solution. It opens even more problems and doesn't solve anything.

Those who support 'money equals free speech' must confront this fact.

This isn't a sport or game with competing sides. This is a fundamental truth. There's no way around this. You can wax philosophical all you like, the truth remains the truth regardless. There is no way to cut private money out of politics without restricting freedom of political speech. You are talking about putting the government in charge of who gets the funding to run for political office and who doesn't get the money. You can't possibly give 320 million people thousands of dollars to run for president... so you'll HAVE to have criteria. So now the government is getting to select who can run and who can't. We're no longer a self-governing nation when that happens, we are an oligarchy.

Now.... for the sake of argument, let's assume that we wake up in this perfect world where you've figured out a way to publicly fund 3-4 viable candidates equally.... you can't ever do this, but let's assume you've somehow figured out how to.... Now, money is no longer the object... everyone has the same money. What you will then get is systemic discrimination from the entities who sell the various resources to the candidates. Candidate A gets the 3am spots while preferred Candidate B gets the prime time spots. Candidate A gets the cheap recycled stock printing and Candidate B gets the high-quality glossy stock. Candidate A has to hold rallies in the high school gym while Candidate B, the popular candidate, gets the upscale performing arts center. Also, Candidate A doesn't own a private jet but Candidate B does. Candidate A doesn't have a lot of personal wealth but Candidate B does... so there is an automatic disadvantage that your "equal public funding" idea can't control.

This is why it's foolish to try and establish policies based on pot-smoke-filled philosophy sessions. These wild-eyed ideas that are in your head don't work in practicality out in the real world. The superior idea is to allow people to freely put their money behind the ideas they support. If my ideas prompt more people to give me money than yours, that's to my advantage and rightly so... it doesn't mean I will automatically win... look at the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton vastly out-fundraised Trump and lost. Despite Trump being the richest man to ever run for president, his wealth couldn't top what Hillary Clinton raised or spent. So your concerns about wealth are unfounded and unsupported by the evidence. Money is not everything.

 

[there4eyeM]

See "French electoral process" and learn that such a system has been at work for quite some time.
Excerpt from the Library of Congress about it; there is much more:
Duration of Official Campaigns
A. Bases of Liability
Even if the French have the feeling that they live in an almost quasi-permanent electoral campaign, the length of an official campaign is very brief. As a general rule, it only lasts for the two weeks preceding the first ballot and if necessary the week between the two ballots.9]

The Electoral Code provides that “the electoral campaign is officially opened the second Monday that precedes the first round of balloting.”10] Ballots are always held on a Sunday. If a second ballot is necessary, the campaign re-opens the next day for a week.11] The dates of elections are set forth by decree. In the 2007 presidential election, for example, the decree provided that the first ballot would take place on April 22, 2007, and, if necessary, the second ballot would occur on May 6, 2007. The campaign officially started on April 9, 2007.12]

In the case of the election to the National Assembly, however, the official campaign opens twenty days before the date of the first ballot.13]

There are several additional important dates during the preparation of an election. Contributions by physical persons to one or more candidates for a specific election are authorized only “during the year preceding the first day of the election and until the date of the ballot when the election is completed.” 14] They must be collected through an authorized financial representative appointed by the candidate, never paid directly to the candidate himself.15]

In addition, three months before the ballot, which date is set forth by decree, the following are prohibited:

• All forms of paid commercial advertisements through the press or by any audiovisual means;16]
• Affixing electoral posters or other campaign material in locations and spaces other than those officially assigned to each candidate by the local authorities; and17]
• For the candidates, providing toll-free telephone numbers and computer databases to the public.18]